I’m old enough to remember when the Republicans were in the
minority in Congress and the Democrats held the White House as
well. At that time, the GOP was popularly referred to as the
Party of No, and some outlets like the Huffington Post were not
only applying that tag to them, but calling for the party to be
abolished as a result of it. My, what a difference eight years
can make, eh? The worm has turned and now the Democrats are on
the less enviable side of the equation. But the key difference
now is that being the Party of No is suddenly cool. And the
leader of that movement is none other than Senate Minority
Leader Chuck Schumer.

The latest and best (or “worst” if you prefer) example of this
comes in the debate over when to replace former FBI Director
James Comey and who should fill that role. The “who” portion of
the question is up to the President for now, but Schumer sounds
like he’s made up his mind about when. During an interview with
Jake Tapper yesterday, Senator Schumer sounded for all the world
as if he’s ready to stonewall any nomination unless there is
first a special prosecutor appointed in the Russia
investigation. (CNN)

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Sunday that the Senate
should refuse to confirm a new FBI director until the Department
of Justice appoints a special counsel to lead a probe into
allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

“I think there are a lot of Democrats who feel that way,”
Schumer said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We’ll have to
discuss it as a caucus, but I would support that move.”

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate
intelligence committee, proposed the idea after President Donald
Trump fired FBI Director James Comey last week.

Here’s the video of the interview. If you want to skip ahead to
the applicable question and answer it’s around the 6:15 mark.

In terms of whether or not there should be a special counsel to
head up an investigation, an inquiry by the Judiciary Committee
or if we should simply leave it in the hands of the FBI, that’s
a valid question for debate. If we take off our partisan hats
for a bit we can probably find at least some merit in all of
those ideas. But there’s one point where I would hope no
rational person could disagree: the FBI needs to have a Director
in place. You may not be wild about the choice and some Senators
may even want to shoot down the first nominee and ask for
another selection. But the process needs to move forward under
the regular rules of order.

If the Senate Minority Leader wants to take a stand and hold
that position vacant unless he gets something else which is only
tangentially related first, he’s going beyond simple
obstruction. He’s holding the system hostage and it’s being done
for partisan political purposes. But should we really be
surprised? Schumer staked out this territory early on. He’s been
attacking nearly all of President Trump’s agenda since the
inauguration, with the only exceptions being when he thought he
could get Trump to sign on to something the rest of the
Republicans would hate. (Such as health care.) When Trump gave a
widely applauded speech at the end of February laying out a
dizzying array of proposals which crossed party lines, Schumer
couldn’t think of a single thing he would agree with.

The Democrats are now 100% the Party of No. This would almost be
amusing if it weren’t for the “about face” the media has done in
suddenly determining that obstructionism is patriotic and in the
nation’s best interest.